Saturday, January 25, 2014

At the national level there is a smoldering civil war going on within the GOP between the Christofascist/Tea Party element (which is basically a single group) and the Wall Street and big business element which views the Christofascists/Tea Party with much deserved scorn and sees it as a force driving the GOP to a permanent minority party status within a generation or less. The Virginia GOP to date has been less divided and much more inclined to slavishly follow the dictates of the hate merchants and theocrats at The Family Foundation and its equally heinous smaller affiliates within the state. There are signs that this may be changing, especially now that Virginia's urban areas cannot vote the knuckle dragging, spittle flecked rural areas where the Christofascists/Tea Party have the most power. What The Family Foundation wants and demands is simply becoming more and more toxic to urban voters and the business community. This was exemplified in last November's election when the Republican mayor of Virginia Beach and many business leaders switched and backed Terry McAuliffe. A piece in Blue Virginia looks at the splintering elements in the Virginia GOP. Here are excerpts:

[H]ere in Virginia, we may now be seeing a Republican schism, if not a
splintering, over a key "social issue" - namely, gay marriage (and LGBT
equality, more broadly). What brought this to the surface in recent days
was Attorney General Mark Herring's announcement that Virginia would no
longer defend the anti-gay-marriage ("Marshall-Newman") amendment in
court. On the Democratic side, this announcement was greeted
overwhelmingly with praise and celebration. . . . On the Republican side, though, the reaction has been all over the
place, from foaming-at-the-mouth rage to pro-forma condemnation to "meh"
to actual support for what Mark Herring did. A few examples.

1. Foaming-at-the-Mouth Rage: Predictably, raging homophobe and theocrat Del. "Sideshow Bob" Marshall went NUTS,
talking about "a Pearl Harbor attack on the people of Virginia" and
ranting that "the advocates for this are the gay, lesbian, BISEXUAL and
transgendered...well the bisexuals have to have at least one of each to
be satisfied." Marshall was joined by 30 fellow GOP delegates
in condemning what Mark Herring said (although interestingly, there are
36 other GOP delegates who did NOT join "Sideshow Bob"). In addition,
"Sideshow Bob" was joined by the
even-more-extreme-if-that's-humanly-possible Sen. Dick Black, who
ranted, "I don't know what the difference between a dictatorship and
this is." Finally, Marshall and Black were joined by...let's just say,
some of the more excitable, less moderate voices in the Virginia
right-wing blogosphere, . . .

2. Pro-Forma Condemnation: I'd put Mark Obenshain in this category, along with RPV Chair Pat Mullins,
both of whom basically stomped their feet a bit, talked about how they
were "disappointed" at Herring's announcement, about how it has "the
potential to deprive Virginians on both sides of this important issue of
the legal scrutiny the matter clearly merits," blah blah blah. . . . politically, they had to throw SOME red meat to their far-right-wing, theocratic base. And they did...sort of.

3. "Meh": In this category, I'd put the 36 GOP delegates who did
NOT sign "Sideshow Bob" Marshall's letter, along with mainstream
Republicans like Brian Schoeneman (who basically argued that Herring was
within his rights to do this, whatever one thinks about the issue being
debated) and Bill Bolling (who stayed out of it completely, as far as I
can determine). Note that you also didn't hear anything on this from
the Chambers of Commerce, the NOVA Technology Council folks, and other
non-theocratic, pro-business Republicans.

4. Outright Support for What Herring Did: Here, we've got conservative and libertarian-inclined bloggers like Mason Conservative,
who explained why "Mark Herring Is Right," and how he's even "glad
Herring is forcing us to deal with this." Wow - actual sanity and reason
from the right! :) In this same category, we've also got Republican blogger D.J. McGuire,
who argued strongly that "Mark Herring was well within his mandate to
do what he did, that Herring clearly "has an obligation to both the
Federal and the state constitutions," and that on the merits, "adjusting
and expanding marriage (for that is what same-sex-marriage advocates
wish) would be beneficial."

Over time, continuing to prostitute itself to the likes of Victoria Cobb and other hate merchants is going to cost the Virginia GOP dearly. I say this as a former Republican who exited the GOP - as did all of my extended family - years ago at this point (and the youngest generation in the family is even more anti-GOP). I concur with the author of the piece at Blue Virginia:

Let's just hope that this continues, that the GOP jettisons its
theocrats, bigots, and other extremists, and that the once-great Party
of Lincoln (and Eisenhower, etc.) recovers its past sanity.

The Christofascists need to become both political and social outcasts who respectable politicians and decent people give wide berth to and avoid whenever and wherever possible.

When the boyfriend - he'll be my husband after April 20th - and I travel we have had varied experiences when we go through airport security or recently when we went through security for a cruise on the Carnival Glory back in October. With Carnival, we were treated as a couple no questions asked. At airports, the experience has been mixed. Now, the TSA is changing its policies so that same sex couples will be treated the same way as straight couples. The Washington Blade as coverage. Here are highlights:

The Washington Blade has learned the Transportation Security
Administration will allow same-sex couples to undergo pre-flight
security screenings together in response to two recent incidents with
American Airlines personnel at a Colombian airport.

Hunter Carter, a prominent same-sex marriage advocate in Latin
America who said American Airlines personnel at the airport in the
Colombian city of Medellín separated him and his husband, César Zapata,
as they tried to check into their Miami-bound flight on Jan. 18,
received an e-mail from Alec Bramlett, senior litigation attorney for
the airline, on Wednesday afternoon.

“TSA has communicated to our Corporate Security folks that they are
working on a technical change to its directive, and that pending that
change, we can immediately begin screening same-sex spouses together,”
wrote Bramlett in the e-mail the Blade obtained from Carter. “We are
working on communicating this change in procedures to our stations
ASAP.”

A TSA spokesperson confirmed to the Blade on Thursday the agency is
“working to make clear any confusion in language included in the
Aircraft Operator Standard Security Program (ASOP) document” that
dictates security screenings.

“TSA policy is for every attempt to be made to accommodate all families traveling together,” said the spokesperson.

No doubt this change will result in more gnashing of teeth among Christofascists and bigots. The world and society are changing whether they like it or not.

As concerns about the safety of athletes and others attending the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, continue to grow, we now learn that members of the U.S. Olympic teams have been directed to NOT wear team uniforms anywhere except in the official Olympic venues. The warning comes for the IOC and cites U.S. State Department concerns about the physical safety of Americans participating in the Winter Games. As previous posts have indicated, insurgents at war with the Russian regime may seek to inflict terrorist attacks on those attending and participating in the Games. Here are highlights from the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. unveiled more of its Winter
Olympic uniforms Thursday, but officials are cautioning athletes to keep
theirs under wraps outside the games' venues.

A
memo sent to athletes by the U.S. Olympic Committee cautions them to
avoid wearing team colors too prominently in Sochi amid heightened
concerns about security in the southern Russian resort town.

"The
U.S. Department of State has advised that wearing conspicuous Team USA
clothing in non-accredited areas may put your personal safety at greater
risk," says the memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The
memo details other steps that athletes can take to ensure their safety
while in Sochi, including enrolling in a State Department traveler
program.

Officials caution athletes about safety at
each Olympics, but the warning about Team USA gear seemed new to Bretz,
who also competed four years ago in Vancouver and said he received no
such warning then.

The USOC declined to
comment on the memo but reiterated a statement from Chief Executive
Scott Blackmun,
who said the committee is working with the State Department,
local organizers and law enforcement to ensure athletes' safety. The
State Department didn't respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, as the New York Times reports, some families of athletes and tourists are rethinking attending the Sochi Games. Here are excerpts:

Athletes
and their families are becoming increasingly anxious about possible
terrorist attacks at the Winter Olympics in Sochi, so much so that some
families have decided not to attend and others plan to curtail their
activities once they get to the Games in Russia.

No
American athletes have yet canceled plans to compete because of
terrorist threats. But with increasing talk about unrest in the region
and threats from would-be suicide bombers, some family members say they
are reconsidering long-held plans to support the athletes at the Games.

“It’s
getting to the point where our lives are on the line if we go there,”
said Tim Oshie, whose son, T. J., is on the United States hockey team.
“They’re talking about terrorizing families. I’d rather stay in the
homeland.”

Patrick Sandusky, a spokesman for the United States Olympic Committee,
the organization responsible for the delegation of American athletes at
the Games, refused on Friday to answer questions about whether athletes
and their families had expressed concern to Olympic officials, what kind
of guidance the organization was giving athletes regarding security and
whether any special security measures would be provided in Sochi.

This month, the State Department issued a travel advisory warning
Americans planning to go to Sochi that terrorists had threatened to
attack the Winter Games and urging them to “remain vigilant.”

A Pentagon official said recently that the United States would station
two Navy warships in the Black Sea, next to Sochi, in case any Americans
needed to be evacuated after a terrorist attack or other emergency.

Let's be clear. The IOC is worthless and deciding to hold the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi was utterly irresponsible given the dangers of the region. And that doesn't even begin to get into a comparison between what the IOC did in 1936 with the anti-Jewish Nazis and what it is doing now with anti-gay Russia.

While Virginia Republicans and self-styled conservatives (i.e., would be KKK members) continue to hyperventilate and convulse over Mark Herring's decision to not defend Virginia's gay marriage ban, there are indications that perhaps Nevada's Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto, may be considering a similar change in direction in the wake of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recent ruling on the application of heightened scrutiny to anti-gay legislation and policies. Contrary to what members of the Virginia GOP want to believe, recent court rulings are cutting off the supposed justifications for gay marriage bans at the knee cap. Moreover, as the briefs in Bostic v. Rainey set forth, the real motivations for these bans was anti-gay animus - something the U.S. Supreme Court slammed in United States v. Windsor as insufficient to support laws that further anti-gay discrimination. RGJ.com has details on this shifting position in Nevada. Here are highlights:

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said Friday she will
reconsider a brief she filed earlier this week defending Nevada’s gay
marriage ban, saying her constitutional arguments are “likely no longer
tenable” in light of a 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals opinion finding it
unconstitutional to exclude jurors based on sexual orientation.

On
Tuesday, Masto, a Democrat, filed the brief on behalf of Republican
Gov. Brian Sandoval defending Nevada’s gay marriage ban, which is being
challenged in a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
on behalf of several same-sex Nevada couples.

On Friday evening, Masto released a statement saying she is reviewing
the brief in light of the 9th Circuit’s opinion in SmithKline Beechum
Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories.

“The
Ninth Circuit’s new decision…appears to impact the equal protection and
due process arguments made on behalf of the state,” Masto said in the
written statement. “After careful review of the SmithKlinedecision these
arguments are likely no longer tenable in the Ninth Circuit.

“This
office will conduct further review over the weekend in order to
evaluate the state’s argument in light of SmithKline.We will be
discussing this with the Governor’s Office next week.”

Despite the demands of Christofascists and their political whores in the GOP, attorneys, including state attorney generals, cannot ethically argue cases when they believe governing case law makes their arguments little more than an attempt to deceive the Court hearing the case. I suspect e will be seeing more and more honest and ethical state AG's refusing to defend gay marriage bans.

LGBT citizens are not the only targets of Republican bigotry and oppression. Women are another favored target as Christofascist lunatic Mike Huckabee - Huckabee has stated on television that he wants the Bible to replace the U.S. Constitution as America's governing document - forcefully reminded us in his recent comments on women at the Republican National Committee winter meeting. Even conservative columnist Kathleen Parker - one of the generally still sane conservatives - was offended and takes Huckabee - and by extension the Republican Party- to task for this continued batshitery. Here are highlights from Parker's column:

What Huckabee was saying was that women are not just packages of
reproductive parts whose lives are circumscribed by access to birth
control. This is the thinking he ascribes to Democrats. Instead, he
said, Republicans are fighting a war for women “to be empowered to be
something other than victims of their gender.”

Not bad so far, but then . . . uh-oh.

“And
if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them
believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and
providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because
they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without
the help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussion
all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have
played them to be.”

That is one long sentence, punctuated with
several highlight-worthy words — “helpless,” “libido,” “Uncle Sugar”
and, never far from the male Republican mind, “reproductive system.” Paging Dr. Freud . . .As Republicans can’t seem to learn, it’s all in how you say
things. Even if Huckabee was only describing how he believes Democrats
think of women, he may have parted the curtain on his own unconscious
processes. Who, really, is worried about women’s libidos?

No one
in the debate about health insurance coverage of birth control has
concerned himself with libido-related concerns except, notably, Rush
Limbaugh. It was he who made the leap from Sandra Fluke’s insistence
that health insurance should cover birth control to his conclusion that
Fluke is, therefore and obviously, a “slut.”

One is justified in wondering: Why do these men concern themselves so
much with what women do with their, ahem, “reproductive systems”?

Does
Huckabee really think that Democrats are wedded to the idea that women
can’t function without “Uncle Sugar” offering medications to thwart
ovulation and fertilization? Even Uncle Sugar is creepy. No doubt
intended as a clever twist on Uncle Sam, he sounds like the lurking
uncle who trades chocolate for a smooch on the upstairs landing.

Rather than end the idea of a Republican war on women, Huckabee has
merely provided fresh fodder to Democrats, while reminding women why
they don’t want to associate with this crowd. Clue-less.

One does indeed have to wonder why this angry aging white men are so utterly obsessed with sex whether it be gay sex or women's body parts. To me it suggests that they all need a serious mental health care intervention.

The differences in the reactions to Mark Herring's decision to not defend Virginia's unconstitutional gay marriage ban continue to reverberate. The Virginia GOP, no doubt under extreme pressure from the Christofascists in the party base, are acting as if the world were ending as if an huge asteroid is about to strike Virginia. Meanwhile, the Virginian Pilot has released a main editorial supporting Mark Herring's decision. Here are excerpts from the editorial:

As attorney general, Mark Herring has the responsibility to defend Virginia's laws and
constitution - so long as he has a good-faith basis on which to do so.

That basis no longer exists when it comes to the state's constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Twenty-eight other states have amended constitutions to include such a
prohibition; four more have done so through statute. But in recent years,
federal courts have systematically dismantled the legal underpinnings of this
position. Virginia
is now one of several states defending lawsuits filed by gay residents seeking
the right to marry, and legal precedent leaves the outcome all but written.

Herring recognizes this and, on Thursday, announced that he could not
"and will not defend a law that violates Virginians' fundamental
constitutional rights."

Herring's actions aren't without precedent; in fact, he pointed to his predecessor,
Republican Ken Cuccinelli, who refused to defend a state law approved last
year. That measure created a statewide school district to take over local
schools that fail to achieve accreditation.

The marriage-related court cases, of course, will go on, as the lawsuit
against Virginia's
statewide school district has. Defendants will be represented by other counsel
already in place. Oral argument in one of the marriage lawsuits is set for Jan.
30 in Norfolk.

But Herring's decision shifts the state's official position on a matter of
major social import, a significant development for a state that once defended
an unconstitutional ban on interracial marriage.

Even the often reactionary Richmond Times Dispatch conceded that Herring was correct on the substance of the Marshall-Newman Amendment's unconstitutional status, although it disagrees wit the process by which Herring has sought to hasten its demise. None of this, of course means anything to the Virginia GOP which, as the Washington Post reports is demanding that Governor McAuliffee defend the unconstitutional marriage ban. Here are story highlights:

Dozens of Republican lawmakers signed a letter
Friday calling on Gov. Terry McAuliffe to provide legal counsel to
defend Virginia’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. “Our attorney just quit on us,” said C. Todd Gilbert
(R-Shenandoah), one of 32 delegates who signed the letter. “I guess we
need someone to stand up for us in court.”

All but one of the delegates signing the letter were Republican,
including House Majority Leader M. Kirkland Cox (R-Colonial Heights),
Timothy D. Hugo (R-Fairfax) and David B. Albo (R-Fairfax). The Democrat
was Johnny S. Joannou of Portsmouth. Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince
William) drafted the letter, circulated it and delivered it to the
governor’s staff Friday.

The House GOP took a separate step Friday
to fight the decision by Herring not to defend the marriage ban. Over
strenuous objections by Democrats, Republicans on the House Courts of
Justice Committee approved a bill giving the General Assembly the right
to intervene and hire counsel when the governor or attorney general
declines to defend Virginia law.

On Thursday, Herring called the Republican proposal to let the
legislature defend state laws “unnecessary.” He said, “Virginia has one
attorney general, and I think it’s going to stay that way.”
Nonetheless,
legislators put the bill on a speedier-than-usual path Friday to the
full House of Delegates. The House’s top Democrat, David J. Toscano
(D-Charlottesville) called the move “a classic case of nontransparent
legislating.”

He said the bill raises serious constitutional and practical questions. “What we’re going to do with this bill is create 140 little attorney generals,” Toscano said. “It’s a recipe for chaos.”

Today's Virginia GOP is little better than the segregationists who cited the Bible as their justification as they pushed "Massive Resistance" and closed public schools in parts of Virginia rather than allow black children attend. These are NOT nice and decent people and I hope history's judgment of them is scathing. The sooner conservative Christianity becomes a dead form of religious belief, the better off Virginia and America will be. It is a blight on human existence.

Mark Herring (center) - October 12, 2013 at a fundraiser at our home. Yours truly is at left and 1st Vice President of the Democrat Party of Virginia is at right.

The Christofascist/GOP rants and spittle flecked batshitery and hyperventilating continued today in the wake of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herrings decision to NOT defend Virginia's unconstitutional gay marriage bans. And in the process, the Christofascists and Republicans - who in my view make tawdry whores look virtuous in comparison - have shown the true level of their rank hypocrisy and disingenuousness. Moreover, they have shown their ignorance as to the ethical restrictions placed on attorneys. Surprisingly, one post on Bearing Drift supported Herring's actions. However, the blow back from the commentors shows the bankruptcy of today's conservationism. First, here are highlights from the supportive post on Bearing Drift:

There are some who claim Herring went beyond his reach in deciding the amendment conflicted with the federal constitution. I disagree. Herring’s oath (which Virginia Virtucon was kind enough to reproduce – albeit in a far different conclusion than my own) makes clear he has an obligation to both the Federal and the state constitutions. The question then becomes: which one should have priority? I would humbly submit that the answer is abundantly clear.

That leads to the next question: can Herring determine what parts of Virginia statute is (or isn’t) compatible with the federal constitution? I believe he is, and if this were a mere piece of legislation, there is precedent from previous (read: Republican) Attorneys General. While some would consider the state constitution to have more importance than legislation, I just don’t see it. Neither can stand up to the federal constitution, period.

Finally, what basis would Herring have for arguing (and this is an argument – the fellow actually deciding the issue is still a judge) that the state amendment would not pass federal muster? I would humbly submit the Supreme Court decision of 2013 – which did declare heterosexual-only marriage unconstitutional at a federal level – was ample evidence.

Of course, when one is a Christofascists or one of their servile political whores, logic, reason and even common decency do not matter. Exhibit 1 of this hypocritical bullshit is Bob - a/k/a slideshow - Marshall, a man who has previously admitted to desiring to drive all gays from Virginia. Blue Virginia reports on some of Marshall's over the top insanity:

A few classic quotes by "Sideshow Bob," responding to questions about
Attorney General Mark Herring's (correct) decision that the
Marshall-Newman/anti-gay-marriage amendment violates the U.S.
constitution:

*Should Moses and Jesus apologize to anybody for affirming that marriage is between one man and one woman?"
*"I mean, who's Mark Herring, Louis XIV...Why didn't he tell everybody when he was running for office what he was doing, no he kept this very cleverly to himself and sprung this like a Pearl Harbor attack on the people of Virginia after he takes an oath to defend the constitution."
*"Let me tell you what's going on: Republicans for years now have
been wanting to duck all these social issues, and their refusal to face
up to this....their refusal to frame the issue in terms that the people
understand the common good - because marriage is most essentially
beneficial to the common good..."
*"Who gave [Mark Herring] the ability to become prince, prophet, and wordmaster? Nobody. This is a total act on his own effort to take power to himself."
*[Yelling at Christina Bellantoni, sitting in for Kojo Nnamdi as host of the show] "OH GET OFF IT, DON'T TELL ME THAT
[Marshall's anti-gay-marriage amendment has created hardship for
same-sex couples in Virginia]...you can do anything you want, [but] you can't pretend you're married if it's two guys."

In my view, Marshall belongs in an insane asylum. But in addition to ignoring the reality that the U.S. Constitution overrides the Virginia Constitution. the hyperventilating Christofascists ignore Herring's duty as an attorney to not try to dupe and defraud the U.S. District Court. This provision of the Virginia State Bar Code of Professional Responsibility makes this clear:

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;

(2) fail to disclose a fact to a tribunal
when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent
act by the client, subject to Rule 1.6;

(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal
controlling legal authority in the subject jurisdiction known to the
lawyer to be adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by
opposing counsel; or

(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to
be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know
of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.

Lastly, it is important to remember that right wing darling Ken Cuccinelli advocated for doing exactly what Herring has done. Here are excerpts from Think Progress:

Herring’s description of his obligation is also absolutely correct. The oath of office
for the Attorney General of Virginia — which Herring took earlier this
month — includes a solemn vows first to “support the constitution of the
United States” and second to support “the constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.” Article VI, Clause 2
of the United States Constitution makes clear that the federal
constitution takes precedence over state constitutions — so when the two
are in conflict, it is absolutely up to the Attorney General to make
that decision.

Moreover, two recent Republican Attorneys General of Virginia — both Family Foundation favorites who had the support of HowellandMarshall — also made clear that they would not defend what they believed to be unconstitutional.

Herring’s immediate predecessor, Ken Cuccinelli II, also refused to defend laws
he deemed unconstitutional. Last year, one of his spokesmen noted, “If
the attorney general’s analysis shows that a law is unconstitutional, he
has a legal obligation to not defend it.” Indeed in 2009, Cuccinelli
himself said in a debate,
“I will not defend what I, in my judgment, deem to be an
unconstitutional law.” “If I determine it not to be constitutional,” he
explained then, “I will not defend it. My first obligation is to the
Constitution and the people of Virginia.” That pledge did not stop the
Family Foundation and from frequentlyhostingCuccinelli at events, accepting his sponsorship, and cheer-leading for his political career.

By refusing to continue the false and deceptive arguments of his predecessor Ken Cuccinelli and by laying out why existing case law precedent makes Virginia's gay marriage bans unconstitutional under the U. S. Constitution, Herring is in fact fulfilling his ethical duty. And let's not forget that Herring's critics are the descendants of those who (i) supported slavery, (ii) supported segregation, (iii) supported "Massive Resistance, and (iv) bans on interracial marriage. This reality needs to be thrown in the face of these critics by responsible journalists EVERYTIME this critics want to vent on a media outlet.

In addition to a flurry of condemnation from Virginia Christofascists and their puppets in the Republican Party of Virginia, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring's decision to cease defending Virginia's gay marriage bans has also caused a flurry of filings in the federal court lawsuit, Bostic v. Rainey, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Among the filings were motions to intervene by Liberty Counsel, including the vehemently homophobic Matt Staver (The Family Foundation,an extremely anti-gay "family values" organization had previously sought to intervene in the case and file an amicus brief). In addition, per the Case website on Pacer, an Order has been entered by Judge Wright Allen asking for status reports and additional briefing. Here is the content of the Court's Order:

ORDER taking under advisement Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment. All pending motions for summary judgment are taken
under advisement.

In light of the compelling Notice from the Office of the
Attorney General of Virginia indicating that the Attorney General has concluded
that Virginia's
laws denying the right to marry to same-sex couples violate the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, counsel for the parties and the
Intervenor are ordered to file Status Reports addressing:

(1) whether oral argument on the issues presented remains
warranted, or whether the Court should instead rule promptly on the briefs
without a hearing;

(2) if oral argument is desired by a party or Intervenor,
the requested scope and duration of that party's argument (with the
understanding that duplicative or cumulative arguments are strongly
discouraged); and

(3) whether, in light of the change of position by the
Attorney General, any parties or other entities have grounds to present
argument that the laws denying the right to marry to same-sex couples should be
construed as constitutional.

Additionally, the Intervenor and Defendant Schaefer, III,
are ordered to each file supplemental briefing not to exceed five pages
responding to the Virginia Attorney General's position that the laws at issue
are unconstitutional.

The Status Reports from the parties and the Intervenor are
ordered to be filed no later than 3 PM Friday, January 24, 2014. The Court will
determine whether the hearing scheduled for January 30, 2014 should be held
and, if so, its scope and duration, upon receipt of these Reports.

The supplemental briefing by the Intervenor and Defendant
Schaefer, III shall be filed no later than noon on January 27, 2014. Signed by
District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 01/23/2014. (Allen, Arenda) (Entered:
01/23/2014)

The indication that the Motions for Summary Judgment are being taken under advisement suggests that even if the hearings set for January 30, 20124 goes forward, it may be some time before we know how the Court will rule.

The administrators at Eastside Catholic High School ignited a far bigger controversy than they expected when they fired a popular vice principal for marrying his partner. Not only has the student body revolted but the incident has brought into sharp focus how the Catholic Church hierarchy and its subordinates happily turn a blind eye to all kinds of things contrary to "Church teaching" unless, of course, one is gay in which case strict application of the rules can be assured. Adding to the utter hypocrisy is the fact that not a single bishop has yet to face meaningful punishment for aiding and abetting and covering up for priests who sexually molested children and youths. A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the Church's hypocrisy. Here are some highlights:

A Catholic high school cited its
vice principal’s same-sex marriage as the reason for firing him. But
what about everyone else violating church doctrine?

During
my freshman year at Eastside Catholic High School, in Bellevue,
Washington, my unmarried science teacher got pregnant. Despite the
dearth of decent sex education, most of us could figure out what had
happened. A few students wondered whether the school would fire her;
unless this was some sort of miracle,
we were pretty sure that having a baby out of wedlock was a big no-no.
Fortunately for my teacher and her child, the closest thing to an
official condemnation was from an English teacher who pondered during a
lesson on Greek mythology whether any swans had been seen stalking the science building.

Ten years later, Eastside’s laissez-faire Catholicism has
taken a hard right turn. On December 20, the school’s vice principal and
swim coach, Mark Zmuda, was forced to resign after it came to light
that he had married his longtime boyfriend over the previous summer. In
an e-mail to an alumnus, Principal Polly Skinner explained that the Eastside was “bound by Catholic teaching regarding same-sex marriage.”

Bound by teachings on same-sex marriage, yes, but there was
apparently some wiggle room on the issue of marriage in general. Before
Zmuda resigned, school president Sister Mary Tracy offered him a choice:
he could keep his job, but only if he and his husband filed for
divorce. It wouldn’t do to have a gay, married vice principal working at
a Catholic school, but Sister Mary could somehow make do with a gay
divorcée.

The school has couched its response to the
ensuing controversy—hundreds of students walked out of class after the
popular vice principal’s resignation was announced—in the fact that the
school’s affiliation with the Archdiocese of Seattle left it no choice
but to follow Church doctrine on the issue of gay marriage. [E]ven a cursory look at Eastside’s personnel practices show that the
school is picking and choosing just what counts as behavior
“inconsistent” with Church teachings. Just off the top of my head, I can
recall teachers who became pregnant outside of marriage, teachers who
advocated for the death penalty, teachers who handed out condoms to
students, even a few openly gay teachers. . ..

Abuse allegations against teachers, extramarital affairs by board
members, even student-produced sex tapes were hushed-up and hidden from
sight. In every case, the school demurred or ignored any conflict with church doctrine.

Firing an employee for violating a rule that doesn’t make sense is
wrong, but selectively firing such an employee is even worse. If
Eastside really wants to hang its hat on the argument that religious
institutions must abide by canon law, then the school can at least
actually abide by canon law.

The school has continued to muddy the waters. Before resigning from
her position on Tuesday, Sister Mary asked an ECS senior to share this comment: “I look forward to the day when no individual loses their job because they are married to a person of the same sex.”

The
only group that hasn’t exercised back-bending feats of hypocrisy is the
student body. Students have walked out, picketed, debated with church
leaders, and are even organizing a national “Mr. Z” day, asking people
across the country to wear orange on January 31. As the administration
continues to waffle on whether or not the Vatican dictates its HR
policy, the students continue to demonstrate Eastside’s only real
leadership.

And people wonder why the younger generations are leaving institutional religion in droves. If one is ethical and honest, nowadays, there is no other option but to walk away.

One of the reasons that the Virginia Republicans are making so much noise about Mark Herring's decision to not defend Virginia's gay marriage ban is because they want to take attention away from headlines like this: "Former Va. Governor, Wife Due in Federal Court." It is headlines like this that show how rotten things are under the supposedly "family values" crowd that preaches one thing while doing something very different in practice. And let's not forget that the evangelical Christians hyperventilating over Herring's action as a group have the highest divorce rate in America. So much for the sanctity of marriage. NBC 4 in Washington looks at today's court appearance by Bob and Maureen McDonnell. Here are excerpts:

Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife,
Maureen, are set to make their first court appearance on federal
corruption charges.

A bond hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m., followed by an arraignment at 11 a.m. Friday in U.S. District Court in Richmond.

The 14-count indictment accuses the McDonnells of
accepting gifts totaling more than $135,000 including loans, a Rolex
watch, rounds of golf at an exclusive club and designer clothes, among
other gifts. It connects those gifts to support that Maureen and Bob
McDonnell gave to Star Scientific, a Glen Allen, Va.-based company that
makes dietary supplements.

McDonnell and his wife are charged
with one count of conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud;
three counts of honest-services wire fraud; one count of conspiracy to
obtain property under color of official right; six counts of obtaining
property under color of official right; and one count of making false
statements to a federal credit union.

McDonnell is also charged with an additional count of making a false
statement to a financial institution, and Maureen McDonnell is charged
with one count of obstruction of an official proceeding.

Yep, those are the type of "conservative" and "family values" that the Virginia GOP doesn't want people to notice. Hence the increased hysteria over gay marriage. Any thing to change the topic.

The hysteria among Virginia Christofascists and their tawdry whore like political puppets in the Republican Party of Virginia continues in the wake of Attorney General Mark Herring's decision to not defend Virginia's unconstitutional gay marriage ban. It is important to remember that those reacting so hysterically are the successors of those who supported "Massive Resistance" and closed public schools rather than desegregate, opposed interracial marriage until the bitter end and now are working diligently to disenfranchise minority voters and block Medicaid expansion that would benefit 400,000 uninsured Virginians. In short, these are NOT nice and decent people. They make the Pharisees of the Bible look like kind and generous philanthropists. The Washington Post looks at more of the spittle flecked hysteria from these foul people. Here are excerpts:

Outraged Virginia Republicans quickly began searching for a way to
preserve the state’s gay marriage ban Thursday after Attorney General Mark R. Herring announced that he would join a lawsuit seeking to have it declared unconstitutional.

Some GOP legislators were exploring ways to defend the ban
without Herring’s help. Herring’s most ardent opponents sought to take
legal action against the attorney general for what they described as his
misuse of the office. The National Organization for Marriage, which
opposes same-sex unions, called for Herring’s impeachment on grounds of
alleged “malfeasance” and “neglect of duty,” though legislators did not
go that far.

“I don’t know what the difference between a dictatorship and this is,” said state Sen. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun).

While
Democrats cheered Herring’s move as a victory for civil rights,
Republicans said the attorney general had made an outrageous attempt to
thwart the will of the people.
Certainly, Herring propelled himself onto the national stage, perhaps
eclipsing Lt. Gov. Ralph S. Northam (D) in the early positioning for
the 2017 governor’s race. He also placed Virginia, already a political
battleground, at the center of the national debate on gay marriage. He
may also have positioned himself to come under more pressure from
liberal interest groups to take similar actions on other issues.

Herring’s
move could make it harder for Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to get anything
done with the Republican-dominated House of Delegates.
Further, Herring’s move added to a sense of upheaval in a Capitol still
in a tailspin over the indictment of former governor Robert F. McDonnell
and his wife, Maureen, just two days earlier.

Reaction did not fall strictly along party lines. “I don’t
think he should do it, but I think he can do it, and I think it’s
probably within his job description to do it” if he thinks the ban
conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, said state Sen. Thomas A. Garrett
Jr. (R-Goochland), a former prosecutor.

As they opposed the move, some Republicans deliberately avoided weighing
in on the merits of such a ban, focusing instead on the process. They
said they would continue to promote already-submitted legislation to
allow the General Assembly to fund a legal defense for state laws that
the attorney general declines to defend.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I am affiliated with Caplan & Associates PC where I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and limited liability companies and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.